Simple action past time
Richard Lindeman (richlind@ix.netcom.com)
Fri, 8 May 1998 15:56:47 -0500
Why is it that "simple action in past time" is not a satisfactory
description of the aorist tense? I can't answer for others, but I can
speak for myself. It is *too simple* of an explanation. Yes, I agree
that it works and renders a correct translation for a great many instances
of the aorist. But I am personally looking for a single definition of the
aorist tense which works for ALL instances of the aorist in a consistent
way. I am looking for a uniform definition of the aorist tense which does
not require *huge exceptions* of the general rule stated above... Using the
above definition for the aorist works for a lot of cases but it also
requires that the categories of the ingressive aorist and the constative
aorist and punctiliar aorist and the resultive aorist be seen as exceptions
to the rule. But I don't think that they are exceptions to the rule at all.
I am rather inclined to believe that we should then alter the rule. In other
words, I am looking for a definition of the aorist which is both
comprehensive and consistent within itself.
I don't think that this is expecting too much and I think that it is very
achievable. In fact, I think that the Smyth grammar actually comes pretty
close in coming up with a single definition of the aorist which is both
comprehensive and consistent. It has something to do with using terms like
"complete", "completion", and "attainment". I like to use these kinds of
words in defining aorist because these are words which can be used to
describe ALL instances of the aorist in a consistent way.
Rich Lindeman